Friday, March 30, 2012

The Climate Etc. site has an article on the "Republican brain" (apparently a recent but fast-growing field of science), to which I respond here:

The larger problem is, when nobody has all the answers even to the most basic questions, instead of admitting they don't know, the self-styled institutional "experts" dig in and defend their "expertness", and fight, rather than disdaining such adolescent and misdirected behavior in favor of finding the objective truth--in fact, "objective" is the key word.

None of the opinions Judith Curry has sought out and brought forward here are worth any of my time, none at all. They are all subjective, not objective. And I am not talking about their political opinions--much less their opinions on one political group over another--which by definition are irrelevant to science. I am talking about their presumptions about "settled/good" science. None of them know what they are talking about. They just don't know what they are talking about.

Let's cut through all the BS, all the vain arguments--we live in a time of crisis in science, because the reigning scientific paradigm, or philosophy, (undirected evolution) has failed, becoming a millstone dragging down the mind rather than a light to the truth, and those who mentally depend upon that paradigm, as a religious belief, do not yet know that their "knowledge" is obsolete, just so much roadkill on the journey to more real knowledge. There are as yet no coherent societal constructs, no easy public narratives--in short, no enlightened public opinion (a.k.a. "post-normal science")--to replace the already-failed belief, in essentially meaningless development (the literal meaning of "undirected evolution") of all the miracles of natural process, of natural mechanism, we observe in the world and the universe beyond. There are only other religions, which the "scientific believers" prefer to war with, rather than see that their own position has become just another benighted religion. Darwin was a religious-minded, amateur scientist, an incompetent fool, whose fundamental misapprehension, concerning design of the natural world, has spawned a world of scientific fools--and their time is now passing, along with that misapprehension. Will that passing consume another century, of increasingly misdirected science?

Judith Curry's blog (and every other blog, filled with earnest argument and unending discussion) is just a continuing therapy session for those who cannot or will not learn. Judith Curry, like every other academic or institutional scientific authority, does not know where to turn. And that is telling, because she "knows", as a scientist, that only objective observation, interpretation and verification are needed--not reliance upon unquestioned dogma, even if that dogma is "scientific" (i.e., "settled science"). All of the people whose opinions she solicits believe unquestioningly in evolution theory. But that theory is fundamentally false, mistaking designed mechanisms for products of undirected, natural laws. Even the discovery and elucidation of the amazing mechanism that is the DNA molecule, has not broken through the false belief, to a realization of underlying, deliberate design of all the life on Earth.

And more specifically, in the climate debates, if the climate system is not designed, then it must be subject to "runaway", chaotic behavior, QED--for (and here is the fundamental truth, believe it or not) there is no coherent physical mechanism, indeed no physical coherence, without deliberate design. Scientists study design every day, throughout their lives, yet shackle themselves to the lie that everything is the result of random physical processes--and no more. The dissociation with reality is so great today, that many entertain pseudoscientific discussions of, say, the "Republican brain", in the vain hope of surcease from their inner struggle to deny the obvious design in the natural world, with concocted outer struggles against phantoms of their imagination. Such discussions are, in my opinion, insane, inherently damaging to true, verifiable reason.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

I received a comment (from Julian Braggins), asking why a simple demonstration disproving the consensus greenhouse effect was not perfomed long ago, by a student if not an "expert". My response grew too long to fit in a comment, and it is important enough to warrant its own posting here:

Good Morning, Julian,

We are in a time of scientific (and political) madness, when the supposedly authoritative "scientific consensus" has failed, because generations of scientists have been miseducated, but few can believe it, or acknowledge it. The next century will be filled with books on "why didn't they see that...?"

I took the time to find and read quickly through the paper by Klein you cited, and I confess I didn't find it all that simple (compared to the definitive simplicity--if one only takes the time to do it--of looking at the actual atmospheric temperatures of Venus and Earth, and noting that their ratio, at various pressures over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is due only to their distances from the Sun), nor does it address the fundamental question of, "how is the atmosphere warmed"? (as the Venus/Earth comparison does). Klein's experiment shows that atmospheric absorption of IR EMITTED BY THE SURFACE does not further warm the atmosphere, but it gives the impression that no IR absorption in the atmosphere can warm the atmosphere, because it doesn't address atmospheric absorption of incident solar IR, which is an absorption of some 20% of the incident solar power. And everyone (including me) has been hesitant to state what seems to be obvious, to me, that it is apparently water vapor that is absorbing solar IR in the troposphere, and fundamentally heating the atmosphere, independently of heating of the surface. Not being a climate scientist or meteorologist, and thoroughly skeptical of every aspect of climate "science" because of the fundamental incompetence I have uncovered in it, I haven't wanted to rule out other modes of IR absorption of incident solar, but water vapor stands out--on Earth and Venus--so far alone. (This would explain why comparing the Earth temperatures with those in other planetary atmospheres does not give the same, definitive results, if other gases than water vapor are at least partially responsible for warming those other atmospheres.) You will note that Klein, for example, discusses water vapor separately and in general terms, AFTER his experiment, and not at all in the context of IR absorption of incident solar by water vapor as a warming mechanism of the atmosphere.

I don't mean to damn Klein's experiment with faint praise (we are all just a varied bunch of students--with the natural world our teacher--trying to solve a "homework problem"), it is just that there is an abundance of evidence, it appears to me, to disprove the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect, and most of it quite simple, at least to a scientist--and the "consensus" scientists, determinedly incompetent before all of it, refuse to see it. It is a matter of breaking the literal enchantment put upon people's minds by the built up "consensus" picture. It is easy to see that enchantment as an essentially religious belief in false dogma, but those enchanted will not listen to that explanation either. One could also liken it to the enchantment of sexual attraction, particularly the "bewitching beauty" power of women over men. I suggest a cartoon might help, of a group of men staring moronically at a beautiful woman--or rather, at her reflection in a mirror--and labelling the men "Climate Scientists", the mirror "greenhouse effect theory", and the reflected image "the consensus"; and off on the side--outside the window perhaps--the reality, that is seen in the mirror of false theory as a beautiful woman, is actually the real world: trees and grass and sky.

Frankly, knowing as I do that the Earth was deliberately re-formed, wholesale, to a great design, I know that all the bewitching beauty of the natural world is the result of prior design, and that is the "bucket of water in the face" that can snap everyone out of their haughty belief in their own knowledge to date.

Saturday, March 17, 2012

Roy Spencer wrote: "...we have only one subject to study, the Earth. Establishing causation in such a situation is dicey, at best."

Wrong. We have Earth AND Venus, which are easily shown to be warmed alike, despite the great differences in albedo (30% vs. 70%), CO2 atmospheric concentration (.04% vs. 96.5%), and planetary surface (Earth is 70% ocean, Venus all solid crust), because: The ratio of atmospheric temperatures, Venus/Earth, is essentially a constant over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, and especially so away from the Venus cloud layer, where the constant (1.176) is PRECISELY due to the ratio of the two planets' distances from the Sun. This fact can only be explained by concluding that both atmospheres are warmed by absorption of the SAME fraction of the incident solar irradiation, and not from the planetary surface: I have explicitly given (at the above link) the simple equations for the mean temperatures in the two atmospheres based upon that assumption, and shown that the fraction (f) absorbed by the two atmospheres drops out of the equation for the ratio of the temperatures, so that one can apply the basic Stefan-Boltzmann formula, without any albedo correction, as I did boldly and simply in my original approach. With the temperature ratio due only to solar distances, there is simply no greenhouse effect due to the much larger CO2 in Venus's atmosphere. That is how easy it is to establish (the lack of) causation, of a supposed temperature increase with increasing carbon dioxide (and thus for any "greenhouse gas"). See also "For Climate, All the World's a Stage".

There have been no competent climate scientists since the Venus temperature and pressure data was obtained over 20 years ago, an elementary study of which (like mine) should have quickly killed the "global warming greenhouse effect". The only real atmospheric warming by IR-absorbing gases is the fundamental warming by direct absorption of incident solar radiation. There is no extra warming due to increasing CO2--nor is there extra warming from the surface (surface warmth merely drives the weather/climate).

This is the revolutionary correction to climate science that everyone is steadfastly ignoring. Everyone needs to admit, first to themselves and then immediately to the world, their mistakes, but right now, everyone but me continues to double down on their invalid scientific prejudices. I understand that, but it makes all the debates since my Venus/Earth analysis simply irrational avoidance behavior, entirely unworthy of true, dispassionate science.

This exchange is a fleeting but vital clue to a fundamental point, which I have tried to focus upon, as a result of my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison (which basically says, the global mean temperature at any given pressure level in the atmosphere depends, above all else, only on the Sun, not on atmospheric carbon dioxide, nor--most surprisingly to everyone--even on the planetary albedo). The fundamental point is, what IS climate and what comes BEFORE it? For example, those who speak of the "complexity" of the "climate system", or label the system "chaotic", are simply not focusing upon the larger picture, which is: The stage, upon which "weather" and "climate" play their parts. My small but definitive contribution to climate science has been to sweep the stage of those players and their never-ending entertainment, and show its bare simplicity. I am not a climate scientist, nor even a meteorologist, but all those with theories of climate have largely confused non-specialists--and too often themselves--with too many details, given without a sense of their proper scale in the overall picture; in other words, they mistake the forest for the trees, or they fail to frame the system, but rather consider it a roiling mass of incoherent (not well understood) processes, always on the verge of being an out of control, or "runaway", climate.

My Venus/Earth comparison--which compared Earth's Standard Atmosphere model, developed over many years of painstaking observations, with the Venus temperature- and pressure-profiles obtained on a single day (October 5, 1991)--should first and foremost be understood as confirming the Standard Atmosphere as the true, unchanging stage upon which weather and climate (or weather/climate) play their parts (or its various parts).

The atmosphere is subject to heat from the Sun and from the independently warmed surface, and the understanding I have so far gleaned is two-fold:

1) Solar forcing is primary, and vertical--it sets the stage.2) Surface forcing is secondary, and horizontal--it drives the weather/climate.

In other words:

1) Direct heat from the Sun (in the infrared portion of the solar spectrum) fundamentally warms the atmosphere, and gravity parcels that heat, in accordance with the hydrostatic pressure distribution, into the observed vertical temperature lapse rate structure. The Sun essentially warms every body exposed to its rays, separately--you, me, the surface of the planet, and every level of the atmosphere.

2) Heat from the warmed surface (mostly ocean, on the Earth) diffuses horizontally, as it tries to escape toward space along the governing temperature lapse rate, the temperature gradient. That diffusion is huge (and the surface heating is uneven, primarily latitudinally), producing the winds, whose detailed causes range from the rotation of the planet down to local topography and land/ocean boundaries. My Venus/Earth comparison should tell everyone that the heat from the surface (which is dependent upon the albedo) has no effect upon the fundamental level of warming of the atmosphere. It basically acts to generate horizontal forces to spread the heat retained by the Earth, from one day to the next, around the planet. Those horizontal forces, nevertheless, are nicely balanced with the vertical flow along the lapse rate, so that vertical heat transport predominates at the equator and poles, while horizontal flow predominates in between, and an impressively coherent, general circulation is maintained (the details of which, I have not studied, and know little).

This is not a theory, but only the merest sketch, connecting the stage conditions, as exposed by my Venus/Earth comparison, with the resulting grand play of weather/climate.

Saturday, March 10, 2012

This article marks, not a further advance in the general understanding, per se, but a correction in my own. I hope it will allow those who have previously rejected my attempted correction of climate science to finally begin to see the basic physical truth I have been trying to get across for over a year. And I hope those who have recognized that truth, and defended me, will not be dismayed by my admission of error, but see it as I do, as the light dawning ever clearer and brighter upon that truth.

Throughout the nearly 16 months since my Venus/Earth comparison showed that the ratio of the temperatures in the atmospheres of the two planets, over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, was essentially a constant independent of the pressure, and in fact was precisely explained by the ratio of their distances from the Sun, I have continually stressed the need to focus upon that fact. I will continue to do so, and stress that this fact is the definitive key to correcting climate science.

However, my path to uncovering that fact contains two separate analyses, which I have incorrectly combined, for one of them contains a fundamental error (though not a fatal one, as so many think). Others have pounced upon that error to dismiss both analyses, and they are right to pounce, but wrong to pounce on both--or upon my deductions concerning the fundamental warming of the atmosphere. So the public may consider all of us to be incompetent (and that is just my larger thesis anyway), for bringing wrong science into the public debate. This is not entirely fair, since we skeptics were and are right to confront publicly what we see as an incompetent consensus, being foisted in the most egregious way upon the public. Nevertheless, no one has had all the answers (and this, too, I have consistently emphasized), and no one has yet gotten completely or consistently right, all the physics used to "explain" temperatures in the Earth-plus-atmosphere system.

The two lines of reasoning I wrongly combined were the following:

1) That the Earth-plus-atmosphere system can be replaced by a blackbody, even though that system reflects a substantial portion of the solar radiation incident upon it from the Sun, while a blackbody absorbs all of the radiation incident upon it. That is, as I now see it, a false proposition, but it was consistent with my early physics education, as I remembered it, and, amazingly, it was apparently and spectacularly confirmed by:

2) The fact I started this article with--that, despite the quite different fractions of incident solar radiation reflected by Venus and Earth, their temperature ratio affirms, positively and undeniably, that they both absorb the same portion of the incident solar radiation.

The question immediately presents itself: How can two systems reflect different fractions of the incident solar radiation, yet absorb the same fraction, as logically implied by their atmospheric temperatures? This has always niggled at my mind, but the definitive fact (2) above was so obviously right, and explained so much, that I knew I had to emphasize it, against all criticisms. And I was right to do so, as I was led by the sure fact to the right physical explanation. Nevertheless, I was wrong about (1) above, and I have only just last night finally and fully separated the two statements above from each other--for they are logically independent of each other (the second one being an empirical fact). We have all been focused upon using the blackbody formula directly and naively, in the first place, by the consensus's emphasis, and misuse, of it.

Those who want to dismiss me say, effectively, that the two systems cannot reflect different fractions, yet absorb the same fraction, and since I am wrong about (1) above, my "fact" (2) must also be wrong, and my quantitative findings just a coincidence, or coincidence-squared (since I didn't consciously "make up" my own rules concerning blackbodies, but merely followed what I understood from my early physics education, to obtain those quantitative findings, and those findings stand on their own, as empirical facts, no matter how I came to get them--and claims of "coincidence" aside, consensus theory cannot explain those facts either).

But I say, I have already explained physically how two planet-with-atmosphere systems can reflect different fractions, yet apparently absorb the same fraction: Only the two planetary surfaces absorb different fractions, while the atmospheres above those surfaces absorb the same fraction. Then the temperature lapse rate of the atmosphere, acting as the heat-governor of the system, allows vertical heat transport from the surface to pass through the atmosphere to outer space, without heating the atmosphere further (that is, without changing the vertical lapse rate, or the global mean atmospheric temperature), while also allowing the horizontal heat transport that acts to smooth out variations in the heating (primarily due to the difference between day and night, as well as latitudinal and seasonal variations).

So, my present position is that the atmosphere (warmed independently of any surface warming) allows the planet-plus-atmosphere system, with its unique atmospheric thermal governor, to mimic a blackbody, by making the albedo irrelevant. It does this so well, that my calculation of the "true energy balance" of the system confirmed the naive blackbody temperature of 279K, rather than the 255K of the consensus. I cannot explain, at this time, why the system appears to be at the blackbody temperature of 279K so well, in my calculation; it is just another reason why I thought the system "was" a blackbody.

The above explanation of the fundamental warming of the atmosphere is the only way I know to make sense of the facts, and it also explains the seemingly insoluble conundrum that has split skeptics of the consensus so fundamentally, and lies at the heart of the false science of the consensus: How to use the Stefan-Boltzmann blackbody formula properly to explain atmospheric warming. (The consensus is wrong, because it essentially adds supposed "blackbody radiation from the surface" onto the real energy supplied by the Sun, and thus has to postulate "back radiation" to balance it out.) Through a wrong understanding, I nevertheless uncovered the definitive facts, and have now shown how I was right, in my physical interpretation, even though I was partially, and fundamentally, wrong in my initial assumptions. I don't expect those who have determinedly dismissed me to respond as dispassionate scientists, interested only in the truth, but I am content with having recognized the truth when I found it, and focused upon the definitive facts as well as I did (in an insane debate environment).

And I still think, given how naturally and easily I did my Venus/Earth analysis, it should have been done 20 years ago--or someone should simply have studied the data, and noted that the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, at Earth tropospheric pressures, does, in fact, depend only upon the ratio of their distances from the Sun. A generation of climate science was wasted on politicization of patently false theory.

I encourage everyone to face and throw off their errors (and thus, retract the consensus, all you climate scientists). It is simply a liberating experience for the mind--but it takes some intestinal fortitude to be unflinchingly honest, even for one who has been nearly universally dismissed, and has little to lose by coming clean. Here I am, human (big surprise).

By the way, for those who still think the Earth-plus-atmosphere system is equivalent to a blackbody, what changed my mind was considering, for the umpteenth time (in the "still of the night"), and this time seeing it clearly, the following: Two billiard balls, one black and one white, placed in space the same distance from the Sun (and both subject basically only to the radiation from the Sun). Drawing an imaginary "blackbody" sphere just outside of each, according to my original prescription, would predict the same temperature for both balls. But in fact, the white ball does not absorb all the radiation that the black ball does, so they cannot attain the same temperature. So my prescription is false--except, strangely, when you add an atmosphere, then it gives you startling new insight into the real, fundamental physics. Again, the only thing that saved that prescription from failing, in comparing the Venus and Earth atmospheres, is that the atmospheres are both warmed by the same fraction of the incident solar energy, not by the total non-reflected fraction of that energy, and the atmospheres are fundamentally structured to shrug off "extra" heat from the surface, upwards along the governing temperature gradient.

So a proper presentation of my Venus/Earth comparison is to HYPOTHESIZE that the two atmospheres are both warmed by direct absorption of the same fraction of the incident solar radiation--and then note that the results precisely confirm that hypothesis. Or science can just celebrate another great moment of "true discovery from mistaken premise" (and I would also suggest, my higher mind must have known better than me, and guided me--by the most direct way possible in the current, universally dismissive, intellectual atmosphere--to the truth).

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

I have submitted the following comment to the Claes Johnson blog, where commenters are still dogmatically adhering to the common, yet--to me, and to many of my readers--now known false belief, that the Earth's atmosphere is warmed from the surface, not by direct absorption of incident solar infrared radiation:

For those who visit this site open to new, definitive facts: The lapse rate, as a basic concept, does NOT require the surface heating the troposphere. The latter is just a naive assumption and, as my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison has revealed, such surface heating exists only as weather, overlaid on the fundamental equilibrium state described by the Standard Atmosphere (which climate science incompetently turned its back on over 40 years ago). That comparison clearly and simply shows that the troposphere is fundamentally warmed only by direct absorption of solar IR radiation; there is no other physical explanation (given the great differences in the CO2, albedo and planetary surfaces of Venus and Earth) for my factual finding that the observed Venus/Earth atmospheric temperature ratio, over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is due only to the ratio of the two planets' distances from the Sun. From that finding (completely unexpected by defenders of consensus climate theory, although it should have been discovered 20 years ago), logic dictates that both atmospheres MUST be warmed by the SAME portion of the incident solar, diluted in each case only by the planet's distance from the Sun; and furthermore, this can only be through direct absorption of that portion of the incident solar, not by heat from the surface. Like it or not, this is elementary and inescapable reasoning, and a definitive, fundamental correction to the common belief of scientists--and insisted upon here, dogmatically and without factual support, by Michele, and unquestioningly accepted by Claes Johnson--that the surface warms the atmosphere; the latter has simply been disproved by my Venus/Earth comparison. So vertical heat transfer from the surface does not fundamentally warm the troposphere; that which does not simply follow the lapse rate up through the atmosphere, without heating it, and on out to space, must only manifest locally and/or transiently, as weather (including the observed variations in the general circulation of the atmosphere). All of the posturing by the miseducated and thoroughly deluded scientists of today will not keep my Venus/Earth findings from forcing the fundamental rethinking of climate science, and the rethroning of the stable Standard Atmosphere. It is just a matter of time.

Update 10 March, 2012: I have realized that my claim here, that the blackbody temperature of the Earth-plus-Atmosphere system is 279K, is wrong, and have posted on this at "My Own Blackbody Error". That claim should no longer be taken to be my scientific position.

The following is an updated version of my comment submitted in response to the latest John O'Sullivan post, at climaterealists.com:

Lay readers need to know they are being fed incompetent science by all sides of this "climate science war". For example:

The article states: "Climate scientists then commit a very grave error in the numbers: they equate the energy flux density of the incoming power to that of the outgoing power (not a requirement of the Law of Conservation of Energy (LCE))."

The scientific truth is, equating incoming and outgoing power IS a fundamental requirement. The consensus merely does it at the wrong place--the surface of the Earth--rather than beyond the atmosphere, where the requirement is "radiation in equals radiation out", which is what the ruling Stefan-Boltzmann formula specifies (but the current generation of scientists, both consensus and skeptic, refuse to adhere to that).

Both sides are ignoring the truly definitive evidence, that not only disproves the greenhouse effect (as correctly stated, and as understood by any interested layperson--of increasing atmospheric temperature with increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide), but corrects a whole handful of basic mistakes common to both sides in the debate, and which is the necessary starting point for a re-examination of climate science.

The scandal is, both sides feel smugly free to ignore the need to fundamentally correct climate science, they all think it is just the "other guys" that are wrong, yet they both pay heed to the same false, and thus misleading, concepts (such as, that the radiating temperature of the Earth-plus-atmosphere system is 255K, or more telling, that peer-reviewed literature--and nothing else--is verified correct science; the true radiating temperature is 279K, and only hard facts verify scientific theory, not a few anonymous reviewers subject to conflicting interests and blind, dogmatic prejudices, instead of to the simple physical truth and the integrity of science). The whole situation is insane, to any competent physical scientist, and laypersons should not be taken in by any of it. Just remember that the direct comparison of the temperatures in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth is the definitive evidence that disproves the consensus, and fundamentally corrects current, entrenched, mistaken beliefs among the scientists on both sides.

Monday, March 5, 2012

I submitted the following comment to the bishop hill web site this morning, where the solar influence on climate was being discussed, and the variability of the Sun in its output of ultraviolet radiation was brought up. I think a wider, deeper understanding is necessary, particularly in the face of my epochal finding of a wholesale re-design of the Earth and solar system, less than 20,000 years ago:

Ultraviolet radiation from the Sun may be quite variable (and dangerous to living tissue), but it is only 8% of the Sun's power output, and is almost entirely absorbed in the stratosphere (causing the distinctive, positive temperature lapse rate there), above the troposphere and our own, (yes) protected, environment. This circumstance is not merely convenient for us, and all the life on Earth, it is indicative of design. The bottom line is, climate science is today a fool's science, and the stable Standard Atmosphere rules, not "runaway climate". Science and the world have simply been on the wrong track, and miseducated for generations, by the belief in a climate that can periodically, even routinely, crash into a global "ice age" (so why not, they childishly thought, an equally catastrophic global warming?). The vain public debates over climate science, and revelations of its fundamental incompetence, are all just a matter of false dogma in science, bred and raised to a destructive level worldwide, now biting everyone where it hurts the most.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

I have submitted the following comment to real-science.com, on why we are still seeing alarmist warnings about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the media, when so many now know better:

It is basically a matter of "cover your backside", or bargaining for their future credibility, by both alarmists and "lukewarmers"--they want to set up the public to believe that they are just going by the "best evidence" and that, at worst, the evidence is not good enough to decide just yet whether AGW, or the greenhouse effect of increasing temperature with increasing CO2, is real. The alarmists will insist upon "AGW is real and dangerous" as long as they can, and only admit, over as many years as they can stretch it, that the growing evidence is looking more and more against the present "consensus" belief. And the "lukewarmers" are helping them, by also insisting the greenhouse effect is real, and forcefully stating at every opportunity that those who deny it are a lunatic fringe. Well, some scientists like me KNOW (and all should know, by now) there is no such greenhouse effect, AT ALL, and in fact that the very idea is incompetent. As a competent scientist (but with strong experience in piercing to the heart of a problem), it took me, from knowing nothing (and caring nothing) about the climate debate, only one year to come across, and immediately focus upon, the strongest evidence against the consensus (the lapse rate structure of the atmosphere, already long known in the Standard Atmosphere), and quickly nail down the definitive evidence that proves the incompetence of that consensus (my Venus/Earth temperature comparison, which not only totally invalidates the greenhouse effect, but also corrects climate science on a whole handful of basic errors in physical understanding of the warming of the atmosphere--including the amazing abuse of the Stefan-Boltzmann formula at the heart of the "settled science" of the radiative transfer theory, that underpins the greenhouse effect hypothesis--and confirms the stable Standard Atmosphere model as THE equilibrium state of our atmosphere, rather than a climate balanced on the razor edge of "radiative forcing" and routinely subject to "runaway climate"). What I did in a year, of casual internet study of the debate, climate scientists had 20 years to do, since the Venus data was first obtained by the Magellan spacecraft, in October 1991, and it could have been done by any student, much less climate science "expert", at any time. That scandalous reality, of the incompetence of all of science, to allow a false consensus to suborn all of our institutions, is what everyone who has aided or abetted that crime against science wants to keep the public from knowing. This should be the front-page news around the world (as I have been writing, on many web sites, for more than a year), but even 97% of skeptics refuse to heed it (and thus show themselves emotionally prejudiced, to the point of incompetence as scientists). The science is not hard, as I have proved to my professional scientific satisfaction, though the "avoiders" (the greenhouse effect believers) want to paint it so. The EGOS of 97% of the debaters, on both sides of the AGW debate, are on the line (not their funding).